The workforce in New York is diverse, comprising both people born in the United States and those who came from other countries. Whether you came from Brooklyn or Botswana — or anywhere in between — you are entitled to fair treatment and to be judged based on your performance, not your national origin. If your employer has denied you this kind of fair treatment, it may be time to consult a national origin discrimination lawyer and discuss your legal options.
National origin discrimination can take many forms. A few examples include epithets or slurs related to the employee’s national origin, negative comments about the employee’s speech/accent, or negative stereotyping of people from the employee’s country of origin. (This is far from a complete list of examples.)
A recent workplace discrimination case from the federal Southern District of New York court illustrates the types of allegations that can be sufficient to support a case strong enough to survive a defense motion for summary judgment.
The employee, D.B., worked for a subsidiary of Amazon. D.B. was born in Chile but had lived in the United States continuously since 1978 (except for one year in the 1980s when he studied in France).
D.B. worked for the employer from September 2022 until June 2024, when his supervisor, R.B., fired him. During D.B.’s nearly two years of employment, R.B. allegedly made multiple discriminatory comments. The alleged statements included disparaging comments about D.B.’s accent and a reference to how “being argumentative is part of your culture” as a person of Chilean origin. Another time, the supervisor allegedly stated that “the problem is that English is not your first language. You have skill gaps in writing and communication. The writing course didn’t help. Have you thought about returning to Latin America?”
‘Comparator’ Evidence as Additional Support
In addition to providing a court with biased comments from supervisors or other decision-makers, another important form of proof is something called “comparator evidence.” This involves identifying coworkers who are “similarly situated” to you, but who do not share membership in your protected class. Once you have identified similarly situated colleagues, you must then present allegations that the employer treated you less favorably than those colleagues.
In D.B.’s case, he identified two similarly situated coworkers whom the supervisor allegedly treated more favorably. One of the two — an American woman — was allegedly on the same performance improvement plan as D.B. for the same reason: the quality of their “Amazon writing.” The employer, however, required D.B. to take an “Amazon writing” course but did not impose a similar demand on the American woman.
Comparator evidence like this, if proven, can be a key to supporting an inference of improper discrimination, as the law requires.
Given the strength of the case the employee laid out to the court, including the supervisor’s disparaging comments and the more favorable treatment of American-born coworkers, the judge concluded that the employer was not entitled to summary judgment and D.B. was entitled to a jury trial.
If you believe your employer has improperly discriminated against you, judging you not based on the quality of your work but instead on where you come from, you owe it to yourself to investigate your legal options. The New York national origin discrimination attorneys at Phillips & Associates, PLLC can help. Our team has the knowledge and experience necessary to provide you with sound advice about your case and helpful guidance in pursuing your lawsuit. To learn more about your case and how we can help, contact us online or call (866) 229-9441 to schedule a free, confidential consultation today.